On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Am 11.11.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since openldap isn't required, but used when found, allow qualified >>>>>>> users to disable the requirement to save some space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb | 5 ++++- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>>> b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>>> index 44f061a..07a839d 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>>> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>>> @@ -4,9 +4,12 @@ SECTION = "libs" >>>>>>> LICENSE = "LGPL-3.0+ & LGPL-2.1+ & GPL-3.0+" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DEPENDS += "libtdb talloc libtevent popt" >>>>>>> -RDEPENDS_${PN} += "libtevent popt libtalloc openldap" >>>>>>> +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "libtevent popt libtalloc" >>>>>>> RDEPENDS_pyldb += "python libtdb libtalloc" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "ldap" >>>>>>> +PACKAGECONFIG[ldap] = ",,openldap" >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> SRC_URI = "http://samba.org/ftp/ldb/ldb-${PV}.tar.gz \ >>>>>>> file://do-not-import-target-module-while-cross-compile.patch \ >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 1.9.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This results from analysing why there's still an openldap ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know, having no knob to disable ldap is dirty, but there is no such >>>>>>> switch. >>>>>>> Even more dirty, the switch in samba_4% is for embedded samba3 >>>>>>> source-base only, >>>>>>> the ldb bundled with samba4 just uses ldap when found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The patch relies on the idea of qualified users - those who know that >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> don't want ldap, disable it everywhere and whistle. >>>>>> >>>>>> it seems to not fix the problem completely, for exact reasons that some >>>>>> other package may bring in openldap and stage it before this recipe is >>>>>> built so you >>>>>> have exact same problem again. I think if this package is patched to add >>>>>> a knob to disable/enable openldap support explicitly then the fix will >>>>>> be complete and I am sure upstream will also accept such a patch. >>>>> >>>>> NO! Please read carefully what "qualified user expected" means! >>>>> >>>> >>>> I understand it well. no we don't want any user tiers here. We should >>>> tend towards becoming user friendly >>>> A qualified user is well equipped to maintain a patch with a >>>> RDEPENDS_${PN}_remove in his layer. >>> >>> Both aspects have their pros and cons, but ... >>> >>>>> Forcing a dependency because someone else might introduce it either >>>>> is insane - and adding RDEPENDS is just hiding the symptom, not >>>> >>>> its bringing determinism to build thats an important aspect. >>> >>> ... this argument beats them all. Nothing to add ;) >>> >>> Anyway - for determinism, openldap should be in depends then, not >>> RDEPENDS, shouldn't it? >> >> it would translate into a build time dependency > > Which is reasonable: > > <bluelightning> sno: RDEPENDS just means that it's going to be the packaging > tasks of the recipe depending on those of the recipes producing the named > packages, as opposed to DEPENDS where do_configure depends on > do_populate_sysroot of the mentioned items > > Otherwise, build_1 (which has no other recipe requiring openldap) would build > without openldap support but sucking in the package, build_2 would be build > with ldap support.
rare but that seems possible case, so adding a DEPEND along with RDEPEND is a good idea to cover it up. > >>>>> fixing the root cause. The root cause is, that waf is broken >>>>> by design. >>>> >>>> such sweeping statements have to backed by reasoning otherwise no one >>>> will take them seriously. IMO if you atleast report >>>> this to waf community someone else might be able to help fixing >>>> whatever the problem is. >>> >>> But shouldn't the samba maintainer do that? >> >> May be/maybe not I dont know, I even dont know whats broken in waf, >> you did not explain that > > Having an option or not, in autoconf you can set > > ac_cv_HAVE_LDAP_H=no > > and the test results in "checking for ldap.h: no" - regardless the > existence of ldap.h. waf doesn't have such an option, has it? > > Cheers > -- > Jens Rehsack - [email protected] > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
